Travis County Commissioners Court
December 21, 2004
Items 23 & 24
Now, it is 2:00 and we can call up items 23 and 24. Which one you want to
do first?
>> actually the first one is the report on the pavement condition
survey which is...
>> number 24, consider and take appropriate action on --
wait, number 23. Consider and take appropriate action on the 2004 pavement
condition survey prepared by fugro consultants lp. And are they here?
>> yes, they are.
>> to martin with a company of fugro who is our consultant,
and of course don wheeler who is the head of our road and bridge division,
a comprehensive condition survey of about 12 upper level high miles of county
roads. Basically it's an outside audit of how well maintain the needs since
the last time we've done the survey. We employed fugro, excuse me, and the
methodology that the company used in doing the survey, but also the survey
results and then we're going to use that as a platform to talk about the strategic
plan and several things we need to change as a result of what we see in the
field, so with that, aisle hand it over to tim and let him explain the results
of the survey.
>> thank you, joe.
>> pleasure to be here, jump, Commissioners, as joe mentioned,
my name is tim martin with fugro consultant, I知 here to show you and present
to you the 2004 condition survey results. I believe they have our presentation
on the screen for your review.
>> do you have an extra copy of the report with you?
>> I have this one here, if you promise not to ask me specific
questions.
>> no, we have a member of the press here and I was wanting
to get that to her.
>> okay.
>> super, thank you.
>> you're welcome.
>> because it's good news, I want to make sure she's got
it in front of her.
>> all right. The objectives of the study were to combine
the existing pavement management systems and gis systems -- did you have a
question? Okay, I知 sorry. Develop and utilize the pavement view, pavement
management system and to develop the five year work plan and prepare the reports
and present to you today. As I mentioned, the first objective was to combine
the two databases. The project kicked off in June when we received the first
existing pavement database and gis database. Several sections did not have
the same limits. These had to be correct and changeed in the pavement management
and gis systems. Missing data elements were also identified and targeted for
collection during our distress surveys. The second objective was the data
collection. The data collection began in July and was completed in August.
Fugro used its automated system. The advantage used to collect the data using
the database inventory and gis map to navigate those sections. The automated
system collects high resolution images and processes them simultaneous to
determine the type, quantity and severity of the fatigue cracking block and
linear cracking on the pavements. The system is also equipped with the gps
receiver with submeteor accuracy to collect gps coordinates every ten feet
or less during the data collection. One pass was made the entire length of
each of the pavement sections in Travis County road work. Previously this
was done manually that were based on a representative area. In addition the
2001 surveys did not use a profiler to obtain right quality data. And these
dempss in the data collection will provide different reports in the scores
as we will show you later on in this presentation. This slide shows the advantage
system used to collect the data with the five laser profile bar in front.
Front as well as the racks that contain the lighting in the digital camera.
The other image on the bottom left of the slide is the anizer software that
collects and classifies the distresses on the surface of the pavement. The
best feature of this type of analysis is that we can change the limits of
the severity and reprocess these imimagines to obtain results without having
any additional field surveys or work and this capability is available to Travis
County.
>> fugro implemented a comprehensive quality control program
during the data collection and processing, this included proper calibration
of the equipment an ensuring the sensors and cameras were clean and free of
debris. El paso sure the correct location and limits of the roadways were
tested. Strict adherence to the specifications and manual review of 10% of
the digital images by a third party and we also reprocessed the images based
on these findings to perform -- obtain the results that we used in the study.
The inspection information consisting of distress and profile information
was used to determine several different condition indices that were listed
here, these were loaded into the cardio graph payment view, pavement management
system. The pci was calculated based on the type, quantity and severity of
the stress cracking on the surface of the pavement. The profile information
was reported using the international roughness index or ri. Each of these
condition indices are score frtion a hundred representing a perfect pavement
to zero which is a completely failed pavement. The overall conditions index
or oci is derived from 70% of the pci and 30% of the ride condition index
t scores for the entire Travis County network are provided in appendix a of
the report for your review. A comparison was made between the previous scores
and their associated ratings and those of the current survey. The first nonsmoking
level survey of Travis County used the road scan pavement management system
which required specific distresses and profile data. Road scan was used in
1987, 1993 and 1998. This pavement management system only evaluated surface
distresses. Profile data was not collected in the 2001 surveys. Currently
Travis County has selected the pavement view pavement management system for
use. As seen in the table for each year's survey a range of condition scores
were selected for particular condition rating. The range of condition scores
used in 2004 were developed to provide a distribution of the number of sections
in the various condition rating similar to the distribution in previous pavement
condition surveys. Variations in the score can be attributed to the type and
quality of the data collected. This slide is the current condition of Travis
County as shown by the number of center line miles in each condition rating.
As you can see, you have about 600 center line miles in good condition and
over 400 in fair, with about 120 in marginal and 20 or 30 in poor with about
five in very poor conditions. When compared to the 2001 survey in this slide,
a large number of road ways in good condition have gone into fair condition.
To examine these trends further a comparison was made by precinct. This slide
shows the surveys in 1987, '93, '98, 2001 and the current one in 2004. When
comparing the condition ratings over time, there was a drop in good condition
to fair from the 2001 to 2004 survey years. This trend is consistent in all
the previews which I will show. The ratings in precinct 2 are consistent between
the years in 1998 and 2004 t 2001 survey appeared to be an outliar in this
data. The surveys in precinct 2 show a substantial increase in condition in
2001. The trends in precinct 3 will consistent with nose in precinct 2. The
2001 survey again appears to be an outliar from this year's survey and all
previous ones. The trends in precinct 4 show the same shift of sections from
good to fair condition. 2001 survey again appears to be an outliar in this
data. When examining the sections in fair to good condition by precinct as
done in the previous studies, one can see a decline in several precincts t
expected trend in the condition of the network based on past performance was
examined to identify any an no, ma'am mys. Results from this examination lead
to the following conclusions. The 2001 surveys that did not contain profile
data collection were significantly higher.
>> you mentioned precinct 1, you mentioned precinct 2, you
mentioned precinct 3.
>> yes, in all of those precincts.
>> but you dependent mention precinct 1.
>> in the first slide? I知 sorry.
>> well, in the one that you just illustrated here.
>> in this slide here?
>> well, the one you just mentioned about the good fair condition.
You mentioned precinct 3, and precinct 4, and also 2, but you didn't mention
1.
>> that was in the first slide, actually, if they show it
there. We did this for all four precincts.
>> okay.
>> I guess I知 just trying to floal this as best I can because
i've got a lot of questions but i've come away until you finish doing what
you're doing.
>> I think the point he's trying to make I think has to do
with the other three precincts more than precinct one. The point being that
the survey done in 2001 was probably overly imistic with regard to the condition
of the pavement in those three precincts, because in part the method that
was used to rate those, the conditions, so what you're saying now in the 2004
survey is in those other three precincts the rating has gone down, in precinct
one it went up from 2001 to 2004, so we're trying to explain how can it be
that ratings go down in 2004. And that is what the point he's trying to make,
it's not to the exchiewtion of precinct one, it's just that the data is different
in the other three precincts than it is in precinct one. The comparison between
2001 and 2004.
>> okay. Well, okay, I知 going to reserve my question because
i've got some specific questions, that's why I made the one to paul a little
bit, I saw something as far back as 1987 when we looked at all of this. I知
going to hold back an legality you go through your process.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> the 2001 surveys that did not contain profile data collection
were significantly higher as I mentioned. Reasons for this increase cannot
be attributed to increase in construction and maintenance activities. Between
1998 and 2001. The 2004 survey collected data from the entire leak of the
pavement which provides a comprehensive look at pavement condition and reduces
subjectivity found in manual survey techniques. When removing the 2001 survey
from consideration, the percentage of good and fair sections in each precinct
has increased since 1998 with the exception of precinct 3. This change is
largely due to the change if boundaries between precinct 2 and precinct 3.
Precinct 3 had a larger percentage of roadways in 1998 and precinct 2 had
a lower percentage in fair and good condition. I believe this is represented
in the report in table -- table 3.
>> what page is that on?
>> page 17, sorry.
>> okay.
>> the lower distribution of fair and good conditions are
now in precinct 3 bringing down the percentage of fair and good conditions
in this precinct. Because of this, saw the most significant increase in roadway
work resulted in the significant increasing condition in 2004. Precinct 4
also saw increases in the percentage of roadways in fair to good condition
t president and c.e.o.s with predominately poor soil conditions also have
the lowest scores. These results follow expected results in conditions when
developing the past performance. The predominant feature is the large inventory
of roadways in precinct 3, as mentioned before precinct 3 also has the highest
number of sections in fair to good condition. Well, a large number of roadways
in good condition dropped to fair condition, the overall condition score of
the entire roadway network in Travis County increased. This is in part to
how the current condition ratings were derived from the ranges in the oci
score and the reduction of percentage of roadways in poor condition. The five
work plan based upon a $10 million budget is provided in appendix d of the
report. The following summarizes costs of the various treatments and the various
miles of roadways compared in 2005. These results from from the pavement management
system which attempts to optimize the budget to provide the best overall condition
scores for the county. This table summarizes the work activities by precinct.
And this is the number of center line miles for each of the treatment types
selected in the 2005 work plan. That's also included in the report.
>> page 20.
>> the recommended 2005 work plan is illustrated here by
the gis map. A copy of this is in the report in appendix b. The gis allows
county personnel to plan local work activities that account for planned work
and road way conditions along adjacent roadway, this will reduce the number
of times work crews visit a different roadway each year in the same geographic
call area and will reduce costs of mobilizing construction equipment. The
effects of different budget scenarios on the overall condition index were
examined. These included the $10 million a year budget, a totally unfunded
scenario and a hypothetical $7 million a year budget over five years. The
unfuded scenario reflects the rapid deterioration of the roadway if no funds
are available. The ten million dollars a year budget resulted in a small immediate
gain in condition after the 2005 activities with the overall network staying
in good condition until year 4. A county has made in its network or a budget
of $10 million per year is recommended to maintain the gaines trafdz has made
in its network condition over the past 17 years. It should be noted that the
budget scenarios do not contain funds for emergency repairs for flooding,
pot holes or factors beyond the control of the agency. The network should
be evaluated every three years and allow a reassessment be conducted. Additional
funding may are required in year four and five to maintain the condition at
its current levels. Now i'll take any questions that you may have on the data
collection, the process or results that we obtained.
>> thank you for a good job. I think you've done an outstanding
job. I know that we have kind of struggled to make sure that we provide good
service to the citizens of Travis County as far as maintaining our roads here,
and I think tnr staff has done a good job, and is doing a good job, but I知
trying to make sure that what we have here in going through your process,
i'll go back to table 2 for example, on page 13, where we -- where when I
look at precinct 1 I look at, you know, the -- back in 1987 there was like
about a 29.3% of the road and of course all the way up to current 2004, and
I do know that eastern Travis County do suffer from the -- well, I don't know
if it's suffer, but anyway, do have a type of soil that moves, I think they
call it pi, and as far as trying to do a lot of things over there in precinct
1 to -- in the eastern part of the Travis County, and I think precinct 4 probably
has some of the same similar problems, we have to constantly do maintenance
and maintain them, but even so, the road conditions never has, as far as the
rating of those roads never has gone above 80% as far as precinct one has
concerned, never has been there, since they start looking at this according
to your table in 1987, starting at 29.3% in 1987, as far as the rating of
a road, and of course ending up at 78.5 is currently 2004, and like I say
precinct 1 never has exceeded 80% and I understand the objective of what we're
trying to do here today is we show that we're trying to keep an average of
at least 70%, we don't want to go below 70% as far as our roads, which is
good, I知 not knocking that, but I do have a problem with slippage and as
far as slipping below the 70%, if we are going to recommend -- and I don't
know, as far as what joe's recommendation is going to actually end up being
to make sure that doesn't happen, that it does not go below the 70% rating
for roads, so I知 having real strong concerns, since I知 right in the center
percentile of roads as far as the rating of those roads, I知 concerned about
slippage below that. And so I知 not knocking you for your report, however,
there has to be a way, I think, in maintaining to make sure that those roads
keep a rating that will not come below the 70% and of course as I stated earlier,
and I want to reiterate, precinct one has never been at a higher percentage
of rating of their roads. Never has been there. 78.5. Coming from 29.3 back
in 1987, so I知 concerned about that. I知 closer to that 70% and I think now
Commissioner Gomez is now, because she slipped from 84% down to 74% in precinct
4, so what are we going to do about that and how and what are you suggesting
that we end up doing as far as looking at this particular report how this
can be avoided as far as making sure that we do not go below the -- we're
already in the 70 percentile right now for the rating of the roads.
>> the presentation I was trying to make and what joe guzman
was alluded to, the table two incorporates that 2001 survey which we feel
is an outliar and is suspect, if you refer to table three on page 17, you
will see that precinct 4 actually up creased from 1998 to 2004 while there
was a slight change in precincts 2 and 3 on that table, a lot of that can
be attributed to the redistricting between precincts 2 and 3 or the differences
in the county boundaries, and then precinct 1 going from 56.4 to 78.5, so
actually your current mosquitos have shown improvement -- scores have shown
improvement from 1998, actually a substantial greater increase in performance
from 1998 to 2004 than any other precinct.
>> right. But in 2001 it was 78.1%. And so I知 looking at
from 2001 to 2004 which is just 4 percentage points increase. I was looking
from that standpoint, not from the '98, but from the standpoint of the --
so in essence what I知 trying to get down to, sir, is that I知 trying to make
sure that we do not slip below -- since the goal is-- I understand it's not
going to go below the ratings, I guess my whole point is how and what can
we do to ensure that that doesn't happen? And I want to make sure that everybody
understands what we are trying to do here.
>> the naing that can be done with clay roads that are already
constructed on highly expansive plays, you would have to construct a substantially
thicker pavement section in those counties to get the same long-term performance
as you would in roadways in precincts 2 and especially in precincts 3, because
of the nature of the soil. Once those roads are already constructed, there
are only so many maintenance activities that can remedy certain distresses
that you're encountering. The condition scores that we used also account for
the ride quality, so there are situations where you might have pavements that
do not have any cracks, but have a very rough ride to them because of those
expansive soils, and that could knock the condition score. So when looking
at these condition ratings, that is why I was describing the rci or the ride
condition index and the pavement condition index which are derived from two
different sets of data. There's the only thing you can really do to improve
the ride quality on some of those roadways would be to do a milling program,
to do some level-ups on there which I I think, you know, the county has maybe
done some of, but short of totally reconstructed a new section, a very substantial
section, that's about the only way you can get a sharp gain in your condition
scores.
>> let me add to. That part of the disparite between the
east and the west is not only the geology, the fact that the west is rock,
and the east is high plasticity soil, but you also find most of you in this
period of time through 1987 and today, a lot of new subdivision streets, which
are built, engineer and built correctly, are also on the weren't part of the
county. If you look on the eastern part of the county, what you have there
is the very low county road system. For the most part those roads have been
out there for fifty years or longer. They were not engineered. They were not
built originally to any engineering standard, so they're just not built as
well, so the only way to overcome that is totally reconstruct those roads
at a much, much higher standard than we're currently doing. Basically you
have to replace that clay with rock and then you'll have something equivalent
to what you have on travis which is a road built on rock but it's extremely
expensive to do that. We are now recommending that we discontinue construction.
But what this trend is showing us from 1987 to today, is that all the precincts
have improves geometrically improved. If we continue to put the same level
of resources in our road system, we're not going to get the same increment
of output or quality. For the most part you hear during most of the improvement,
and it's time to now think about a different pavement strategy of [inaudible]
and much more surface treatment. In other words because of this it isn't a
fairly expensive to reconstruct and to do roadways, take that same order of
magnitude of dollars and cover more miles, cover them with the trip seal which
is a very good way of maintain [inaudible] so it really is where -- and I
think i'll -- the suggestion you can do that at the 70% level. We will still
do reconstruction, we will still do hot mix, we will still do ash mix, but
we'll do less of it in the future but substantially more surface treatment.
So it's -- the good news is that you dheef the goal you set out to achieve.
We're now 70% in all precincts, and we can know that we have achieved that,
we can main tape that same level with fewer resources in a different pavement
strategy.
>> as the new subdivisions come on and we're able to work
with the developer in making sure those roads are build up to standards and
in better -- and therefore in better condition, doesn't it make sense that
you also to find some strategy that will work over where the clay soils are
so that those don't -- don't slip while we're making sure that the others
are, you know, we're having roads built to higher standards on the west side.
>> we're actually talking about working with the city to
change our standard of design for new subdivision streets in eastern Travis
County. Beef up that standard. As specifically to get to the high plasticity
of soil so...
>> how far behind is -- are the roads or the -- yeah, the
standards of roads where the clay soils are as opposed to the western side?
>> it's just a matter of you really going to have to put
more base material in roads, in the roads constructed in subdivisions in the
east, you would have to put more in your soil than currently in the east.
What you're trying to do is replace that material an right now our standard
is not full enough to be sure that the life of those roadways remain as long
as we can get. So we are looking at a different standard of a way the subdivision
is constructed in the eastern part of the county, new subdivision streets.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>>
>> and we began to understand that we've been so focused
on doing a combined code with the city of Austin and make sure that we're
on par and that those are correct and everything will work out and the utilities
we're doing our own way. Eye this is a concern -- this is a concern for the
companies that are building utilities within our right-of-way within eastern
Travis County to make sure they're done correctly and that their inspector
can go in.
>> joe, is that something -- especially that last part you
brought up, especially on utilities, because they are kind of independent.
They're kind of do what you want to do, as far as I知 concerned. We don't
seem to have -- haven't had anything -- it just seems like it's do what you
want to do. But back to that standard that Commissioner Gomez had brought
up, an example, if we're looking at, what, about a seven inch base and you
extend that to maybe like a 17-inch base, would that mean it would give that
road a longer life? It appears that's what it would be, especially when you
have more base there on those pi type soils. I don't know if this is something
that you have to take forward to the city of Austin or anybody else to get
developers incentive that these are the kind of standards and this is what
we want to have in the snu subdivisions that are coming in. We have to accept
those roads and we have to maintain them. And if we have to maintain them,
then it's expensive. They're not designed to last for some period of time
before damage occurs. If you look at these charts, table 3 or table 2, whichever
tables you want to look at, if you look at slippage, it's more significant
towards the seven percent end of things in precinct 4 and precinct 1. So it's
just -- it's kind of -- it just appears to me that we need to beef it up or
we will have the significant slippage as far as the percentages are concerned.
And again, precinct 4 and precinct 1 both are in the seventh percentile as
far as the roads. Now, I guess my question is how much cooperation are we
going to get from the developers? How much cooperation are we going to get
from the city of Austin to suggest that these standards and also the utility
end of this that you brought up is something that we can grab in hand and
get some kind of control over whereby we don't have the kind of slippage that
would take up that seven percent.
>> first of all, to answer your question, yes, we will need
the city to agree with us to change the standard because it is a joint code.
And that will affect only new subdivision streets. A lot of your network,
remember, are the old county roads that went out there and have been out there
for 50 years. When we reconstruct those we'll also need to look at the standard
of reconstruction and beef that up as well. But to compliment that you also
have to look at the right-of-way with -- it doesn't do a lot of good to increase
our base in those roads if we haven't widened the roadway to take the drainage
away from the base. In some cases we're dealing with right-of-way not more
than 50 feet wide. There's no adequate road to put ditches in and still have
a normal roadway. So what happens, we're going to reconstruct the road, we
don't go out and acquire additional right-of-way for the ditches and the base
gets infiltration of water and they have a failed roadway. So it's drainage,
it's a higher standard of reconstruction, but ultimately you have this throughout
all of eastern Travis County.
>> how much can we increase the bond election to address
the issues that are in eastern Travis County?
>> you could do it out of the road bridge fund or do it out
of the bonds. On the bonds of course you're paying interest on the debt, but
it's just two alternative sources of doing it.
>> and maybe what we need is just a comparison to how much
can get done in each year and then how we can compliment that with the bonds.
That would be one way to prevent the slippage and so that we can make sure
that those are addressed.
>> it seems when I was going through this last night, what
was important to me was to get underneath simply raw percentages because you
just have to. So I started going to the precinct 2 roads and I was focusing
on what ones were marginal, poor or very poor. And I found that to be incredibly
instructive. I found out at least on two of them that are very poor, oh thank
goodness that is a cip project for me, grand avenue parkway. So I know that
that one is going to be addressed. Some of the other ones I started looking
here in terms of -- (indiscernible) -- which is northeast of Pflugerville.
This is now being called an urban collector. And that to me said oh, my gosh,
potter lane an urban collector. But because of all the stuff that's going
on on 685, sh 130 and the massive numbers of folks that are trying to get
from hutto any way possible someplace other than into a construction zone,
they are using a lot of these back roads now and they are being loved to death
and being eaten alive not only by customers who are trying to get some other
way out of these construction zones -- if you look at 45 and 130, it's a mess
in terms of what's going on over there in northeast Travis County. But they're
trying to find any other ways. And where do we think all that construction
equipment has come and gone from? So there's an awful lot of heavy equipment
not only related to the highway construction that's going on out there, but
the city of Pflugerville is constructing a massive water line coming up from
the colorado river which it too is just -- all thf stuff is -- this stuff
is having an effect. I also found out that a lot of them seem to have manufactured
housing at the end of them or along them, and that too is how do we think
those homes on wheels get there? They are going down some of these roads and
it has been a problem ever since those facilities went in in terms of killingsworth
is one of those. I had another one -- I知 trying to remember what the other
one is that I looked up, but killingsworth is the one that stuck out on that
one. And the other thing is in terms of analyzing what we need to do is for
some of these roads I was going, golly, how many people are even living on
that road or are there any businesses? It's real important to overlay the
number of homes and businesses because you might have a road that is marginal,
but if you've got one home down that road, is that going to be or should that
be as high a priority as another one that is marginal or poor or very poor
that has 100 homes? So to me it's that cost benefit analysis that I知 not
going to freak just because I see something that's marginal unless I know
specifically what's going on with that particular road. I was a little dispresed
to see some -- depressed to see some roads that are in some reasonably new
subdivision aren't doing very well, but I was also actually pleased to find
that ones that we had put in -- the subdivision four seasons has got January,
February, all the names of the months of the year in it, it's been holding
up pretty good, so I was pleased to see that. I知 trying to get below just
raw percentages and to really look at these, and I suggest everybody else
kind of look at what roads are there and not just a raw percentage. Because
if we do, the raw percentage that really stuck out to me was the one of where
we've been and where are we right now. And that had to do with let's go back
to 1987 when we had a very different Commissioners court -- and in fact, judge,
that even predates you. You were '88, '89, coming on board?
>> January 1 of '89 for the record. [ laughter ]
>> thank you very much. I actually covered your race. But
it was a different court and a different attitude about how resources around
here were distributed. And you saw in 198729 -- only 29% of the roads in precinct
1 were in fair or good condition in '87. And now it's 78.5. Are we where we
need to be forever? No. Are we anywhere close to 29.3? No. Precinct 2 and
3 have also just made huge strides in terms of from 1987 moving forward, and
precinct 4 as well, 41% up to 76. Is there more work to do? You betcha. Are
we anywhere close to where this county was in '87 and '93? No way. I wasn't
there, but we know by looking at these numbers that progress is absolutely
possible and it's just a matter of money.
>> and we've looked at those issues too because they are
important to me. And I think we looked at tnr to come up with some of the
data that's necessary so that there is a cost analysis to it; however, when
we look at the standard for roads throughout Travis County as a whole, then
I think wherever we settle, it's still going to show probably that eastern
Travis County is not going to come up to that standard. So what I do want
us to do is set a standard for the entire county, and then let's see where
everything falls and let's see what the resources are that are available to
us at hand -- in hand and then how we can compliment those needs with the
bond election in 2005. So I知 not -- I知 not even doing any of the data that
tnr has compiled throughout the years since 1986 when it was combined into
the unit road system. I知 not even doing that, but I still think that we need
a standard for the entire county.
>> what's expected today, joe? What action?
>> well, at least lay out all the different issues. What
are the central issues with regard to the paving condition issues we've had
in budget hearings. One half of the one cent property tax that was allocated
for reconstruction was redirected to other uses during the budget process,
and we said that on the one-year shot that was okay, but we wanted to make
sure that we were able to deliver this full report before the court made a
permanent decision with regard to that set or even the full set. So the key
policy issue there is should the court in fy '06 redirect resources? And we're
here to say that the current paving condition has met the county goal of 70%
in fair or good condition. We believe that we can maintain that 70%, not try
to increase it, we're trying to keep it at 70%, and free up resources for
whatever use the county may want to make of those resources. We haven't actually
pegged a number. Right now you have the half-cent. We can certainly maintain
the 70% at a lower level of a half-cent. If you're talking about a full cent,
we can probably do that as well. And we can probably do that over -- probably
over a five-year period. But beyond that I think you're probably looking at
the system starting to go down below the 70% level. The system will continue
to deteriorate. That's just the law of physics. So --
>> on this, it won't just deteriorate if we do that, right?
>> right.
>> so the question is what steps do we need to take to keep
it from deteriorating? And the other thing, if our goal were to have at least,
say, 85 and the question would be what resource investment would we take to
get ahead? I mean, I don't think anybody on the court wants to sit here and
watch deterioration take place. I think our goal would be basically if we
set the goal out here at this point, what resource investment would it take
to achieve it in the foreseeable future, do you see what I知 saying? And what
would then be the aim of the investment to keep it there. And if we reach
that point and we want to raise the bar even higher, what resources would
it take? It's one thing to be on the road now that it's in good condition
and watch the road deteriorate. The fact is that we don't want to see that.
At the same time, I don't know that they would want to be overwhelmed by new
taxes to reach a much, much -- much better standard. But I do think they would
expect us to gradually keep improving roads throughout the county, don't you?
And what want to say is that at some point we need to take more time, mull
over this and at the first of the year have an item posted -- and maybe a
work session where we look at different options. And the other thing is that
when we took the half percent, we would take it right now because we think
we can and we were told that there's enough available for us to keep doing
the '05 program.
>> that's true.
>> so our question would be okay, in '06, what do we need
to do and why. And this gets us started in that direction.
>> that's right.
>> so I would think that it would take a little bit more
time for us to mull the information that's here and maybe see some options
in writing and have a work session, then put it on a Tuesday session and vote
on it. We have in plan already the '05 work plan?
>> we're moving on down with that. We're looking at the '06.
>> we're looking at the '06 budget, plus work plan.
>> judge, I知 looking on page 13, and if you -- the average,
I think, for all four precincts in 2004 is 83.8, that's overall. And so why
can't 83.8 be the standard for this year? And let's all get there. It looks
like we can all get there pretty fast, and then let's move on -- let's raise
the bar.
>> the other thing, it seems to me that the best strategy
would be if a precinct is higher than -- if you say, okay, let's say -- I
would say that every precinct ought to be average at this point. If you're
higher than that, our goal ought to be to leave you right there. Those that
are lower we'll try to bring up to that level. Do you see what I知 saying?
And so the question would be what steps would be taken to get that done? These
charts show us that to some extent 2 and 4 have been deteriorate willing a
little bit.
>> I think we -- the last time we did the survey, we truly
believed that those numbers were too optimistic. They rated everybody too
high. And so --
>> I知 on page 12, though. The graphs on page 12, if you
look at the light blue, yellow, light blue, burgandy, 87, 93, '98, '01, '04.
When I see those, I really see the '01 numbers for 2 and 3 much better than
'04.
>> and that's what we're saying. Almost across the board
the '01 numbers were inflated.
>> so just look at --
>> so look at '87 in 2004.
>> so look at the entire line between 87 and 2004. What I
mean is if you take a look at the trend between '87 and '04, that's probably
an accurate trend. When we -- way up here we're seeing -- how can that be
so far up this curve? If you look at 87 --
>> and you don't have the deterioration?
>> that's right.
>> what does it take to correct these pages then?
>> we can't go back 2001 and redo it. We're thinking that
put that survey in context of all the others that have been done. The time
line is correct. We don't have a big deterioration in 2001 and 2004. Because
if you step back and look at the bigger picture, it's been an uphill climb
all the way. And it could be this methodology, it could be the (indiscernible).
The only things that can account for the inflated view of 2001. But I think
overall we need to say that the conditions have been going up. We're also
at the point of what an economist would call (indiscernible), where we keep
putting in, putting in, putting in. Just because you have 10 workers making
widgets, if you have 10 workers, doesn't mean you can increase that production.
Maybe two of the workers sell a lot. And (indiscernible). At some point you're
wasting your resources.
>> but joe, I guess my concern -- and still the percentage
you look at that also, the consideration, especially in these charts. How
can you prevent slippage to that set goal that's suggested of 70% as far as
the rating of the roads? You have an example, precinct 4 sitting right at
74% right now. Precinct 1 is 78%. How can we prevent that from slipping below
70%? In other words, I could see if it was a high personal, in the 90 percentile,
it went up. So we're closer to that marnl national goal -- marginal goal than
any other precinct. So I hear what you're saying, but keep it from slipping,
there has to be in my mind some recommendation or some strategy to keep us
from going backwards. And it's going to take resources to do that. So I still
don't get what you're saying.
>> Commissioner Davis, the preventive maintenance activities,
such as chip seals, will not only improve the condition of those poor roads,
but will also retard the deterioration. And I think what this system is trying
to do was looking at the overall budget of the county. I know the judge was
just mentioning taking each precinct individually and running and looking
where it would be for that condition, but that's not always the best way to
go about the overall condition index of the county because if you do spot
reconstruction, you could easily spend $10 million on 10 roadways here in
the county. And for those roadways they've increased significantly, but you've
let every other pavement deteriorate by not doing preventive maintenance treatment
such as chip seals. And that's what this system is trying to optimize.
>> I知 not knocking what you're just saying. With the advent
of what we mentioned earlier, especially with the new subdivisions that are
coming online, if we do not stay ahead of the game and be proactive instead
of react active, then it will slip because the upkeep of those new, existing
subdivisions come on line, then the roads themselves will be added to this
equation. In my opinion we still would get below the 70%. And to me that means
that we need to do it right, design it right, get ahead of it and use the
resources to make sure we don't go under 70%.
>> Commissioner, let me say something here. I don't have
a complete answer for you in that respect because the changing conditions
in county and especially on the east side, but with this new card graph system
that we have in place and with the data that we have now, because of the way
it was done, we can do this on a yearly basis and we can tell you when we
bring you our work program what effect it's going to have on our road system.
It will calculate that, just like what these percentages in here. So on a
yearly basis we can tell you whether it is going to have an effect on our
entire system, on individual precincts. So that's some of the answer. The
other answer, just like you said, we need to take a close look at our standards,
our designs on the eastern part of the county just because of the way the
soils and the conditions are. That's another part of that answer. So there's
several different pieces of it that I think we can do that.
>> i'd like to see it.
>> can we tell -- there are several questions I have. One
is, okay, if you say fair and good or all right, let's just leave them there,
if we want to accept that, that's fine. Then the question is how do you get
the marginal roads in fair or good condition? And we want to factor in is
there one residence on the street or 50? Are we able to do that?
>> yes, sir.
>> and on the ones that are poor and very poor, I would think
that number of -- the amount of traffic -- and I guess I知 hoping most of
these are not really major streets. There are probably roads with two or three
houses on them?
>> no, sir, some of them are like what Commissioner Sonleitner
said also. A big example, (indiscernible) lane. I used to take that road because
there was no traffic. Now it's just as busy as 685 because folks are taking
these alternate routes. What I知 saying, it's not that many folks living on
it, but there's a lot of traffic.
>> when you see a way to improve it, do you see what I知
saying? If I live at the end of a street, I can see where the county would
not make my road a priority, necessarily. But if there are many, many other
homes before you get to mine, then I would think that my neighbors and I have
a right to have it better than we have it if it's in poor condition. I think
at some point don't we look at whether we've got to live with the roads that
are in very poor condition or whether our goal ought to be to elevate them?
If they're in poor condition, but few in number, whether we can look at them
and figure out do we them as they are because of the amount of traffic or
do we try to improve them up to the very good condition? I mean, if you just
do that -- it's easy to do it by precinct. But in this report the intent was
to look at the condition of the road more than number of houses on there,
amount of traffic, etcetera, right? In my view if there are 10 10 cars on
day on it, that's one thing. If there's a thousand, I think we've got greater
pressure to improve the conditions because if there are a thousand cars and
it's in poor condition, interpret si soon it will be in very, very poor condition.
>> and the numbers, I知 going through and there's one that's
very poor in precinct 1. It's all of 33 feet long. And yet I would be -- no
offense to that street -- less concerned about that one than I am about carson
road, which has almost two and a quarter miles of roadway that's in poor or
very poor, knowing that that was classified as a rural arterial and is a pretty
main roadway out there in an area where there are limited roadways. So there
needs to be some common sense overlaid on here for each of us to look at our
precincts and say, you know, what is one that you can prioritize that yes
indeed that's the one that needs to rise to the top of the level versus something
that may have a very short length, has very few houses or cars or whatever,
and to make sure that we're also prioritizing. It's not one that the number
generates you're next and it's a very poor use of the resources.
>> I was just thinking out loud for a second here, of some
sort of way to maintain those in the precincts and 70% in fair to good condition
and we've made all poor and traffic with greater than 500 cars per day. Can
we talk about a system with goals where you can address your resources to
particular problems. So we need to try to elevate the entire system to 80%
or 90% because that's a lot of resources, additional resources, and not just
maintaining the resources to get there. Because you were talking about miles
of roadway. But if you can target what you want to achieve with your goal,
it would have been easier for us to achieve them and to be able to say, okay,
we think we can maintain the system as a whole to 70% or 75%, but also get
to other specific problem areas that you want to put your resources. And the
cost effectiveness, that's fine, we can do that too.
>> the other one thing I wanted to mention was that the decisions
in the pavement management system when it went through the selections did
give higher priority to arterial streets. There is that classification of
urban and rural and also arterial collector and locals in the system. And
we put a higher standard on our arterial roadways because of the higher speeds
of traffic and the volume of traffic on those roadways. So that was taken
into consideration.
>> and I also talk about truck traffic. One good example,
again, precinct 1, this is an arterial roadway, and there's an operation that
was starting to start up there and they use that road to get out to 290. So
by agreement they helped pay for upgrading the roadway to withstand the truck
traffic and we're likely to get as a result of that one (indiscernible). Now,
there's probably a lot more truck traffic coming to eastern Travis County,
in particular because of state highway 130 and the road construction that,
quite frankly, in the next decade we're going to have road construction everywhere.
And those trucks that are hauling the gravel, the concrete, they are using
the arterial roads because there are so much more demanding of that pavement
than vehicles. When we talk about allocating resources to truck routes, actually,
have a designated truck road, and we pledge resources to upgrade those roadways,
but also we direct trucks to use those, and that's what we're talking about,
a county truck route system. And if we want to keep the trucks off the other
roads in hopes of preserving the quality of those in the rest of the system.
>> Commissioner con lightner, you're absolutely right. This
report today that they gave us is just a snapshot in time at this one point
of the condition of our roads. This is just one tool we should be using as
a starting point to decide what strategy we'll be using on our roads, proximity,
how many times do we talk about proximity? We're talking about a subdivision
and all the roads in that subdivision were done or built at the same time,
but if you just use a number, it may say just do this one and not all of them.
But this is a starting point. It lets us make that decision to bring to you
all a work plan that y'all will be approving on the work plan for road and
bridge in 2005-2006. But this is just one report that we'll be utilizing.
With the system that we purchased, Travis County owns, we'll be able to run
these models any time to show where we're at and what it does. If we do this,
what is the effect, we'll be able to see that.
>> I know that we haven't really -- there are a lot of things
that we've looked at. And of course, going through this, I知 looking at the
fair and good roads in precinct 1, however, the strategy thing that they're
talking about on how to deal with this --
>> I think we ought to have a work session at the first opportunity
in January.
>> in January?
>> I think the first Thursday we can do it, and at that work
session, then try to put it on a Tuesday session shortly thereafter for action.
The sooner we know the better, right? It may be that after the work session
we decide to take another two, three, four weeks to put together further information,
but just mulling over it two or three weeks will help some.
>> yeah.
>> let me -- if I could, is there any feedback you want to
give us today on either the pavement management or the strategic plan? Because
I might be able to do some additional work between now and the work session
if we knew if there were any questions or concerns that we ought to do homework
on.
>> I say have a good holiday and come back with four or five
options we can look at. And I think if the court members have options that
we ought to consider collectively, it would be good for us to get those. Are
we still hoping to have the strategic planning session about the 14th?
>> 14th.
>> so we may well be looking at the Thursday the following
week then.
>> judge, on the first week's session, the docket is -- Thursday
the 13th at 1:30 we've been asked to reserve the second and fourth Thursdays
of each month through may. So that's the first one that comes up. Then the
following day would be the strategic planning for a day and a half.
>> do we want to target the third week in February? Why don't
we do that? And there are different ways to look at this. And I think it would
help us to see in writing the various actions with a fast tag on each one
of them. And we have in mind, joe, possible sources of funds, including restoration
of the half-cent back up to a penny if we're serious about this, I think.
But I see no problem with treating different categories differently. I hate
to be left with the idea that there are roads out there in very poor condition
where there is a significant amount of traffic. I would think we would want
to prioritize that. At the same time, roads that are in good condition, if
we can keep them there I think we're in better shape because as they deteriorate
it would cause more to elevate them, right?
>> yes.
>> it would cost less to leave them where they are. The different
strategies that I think we need to keep in place.
>> yeah, and I agree with that. The last thing that I want
to do is pit eastern versus western Travis County.
>> and if you thought we were doing that today, joe, we were
not.
>> that's not how it's intended. Unfortunately we have to
sometimes speak up for our own precinct sometimes, but that's not the way
I would like for us to do business here as a court. But I think that you need
to just realize that there's frustration as we travel -- I知 sure as Commissioner
Davis and I travel around eastern Travis County, that all of the activity
is going on in western Travis County, and we call for more development and
more development. Well, it has an effect on eastern Travis County. I've been
told many, many times by tnr to consider the topography of Travis County.
It all funnels down to southeastern Travis County, and that's where all the
water goes. Some of the development up -- from the development upstream. Well,
we can't stop development, and I know that, and -- but I think that because
of that frustration you need to know about the frustration that people in
eastern Travis County feel about that. That even though they live on a road
that's been there for years, they still live on that road. They still have
to travel in and out, and they'd like to have the same road conditions as
other parts of Travis County, and I want them to have those conditions. That's
why I was suggesting that if we could have an overall Travis County standard,
a goal that we can shoot for together, then we can kind of see where all of
Travis County is in terms of the standards and what we ought to be shooting
for each year and how we can do it. We can either do it with the taxes that
we have in hand, we can do it with the road and bridge, or there's a bond
election coming up, how can we combine all the things that are available to
us to get this job done? But I do not intend by my remarks or my suggestions
to pit eastern Travis County or western Travis County or vice versa.
>> in conjunction to what's been said here today, if we look
at this -- if we look at standards, upgrading the standards, especially having
to deal with so that the city of Austin, manor, Pflugerville, whatever city
that we have within Travis County, and it will probably have an impact on
house bill 1445 because it's a standard that means that the city would have
to agree to those standards. So does that mean that we also have to visit
all the cities because of house bill 1445, especially if those subdivisions
are within the e.t.j. And would have to check the code standards. So that's
something that I think we need to consider. The county attorney says that
is correct. So that's something else that we've got to put on the plate I
think as we go forward is to make sure that the 1445 situation is where it
is and needs to be for us to upgrade the standards of new subdivisions, especially
coming on line in the e.t.j.
>> Commissioner, there may be a few adjustments here in terms
of roads that have been improperly coded from somebody's precinct. I知 happy
to take northeast metro park back, and that would be one more thing and --
[overlapping speakers].
>> we'll have it back on January the 13th. Thank you very
much.
>> thank you. [overlapping speakers]
>> so we'll have that back on and change the wording.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:29 PM